27 Sep
2017
27 Sep
'17
2:46 a.m.
dawuud:
I think it is worth remembering that there isn't evidence there is a global passive adversary at the moment, even if certain agencies and organizations clearly aspire to be one.
Quite so. It is well established that these so called agencies do not aspire to be passive. Or perhaps you simply typed the word "passive" by shear force of habit and instead meant to convey "suffiently global adversary". :)
I was mostly commenting on the use of the word "passive", but I agree with you that "sufficiently global adversary" is perhaps a better word.
Doesn't a lot of it depend on context anyway? How can we quantify something like this?